Minimum Wage and McBudgets

[LittleFuzzy]

I disagree. Treating people differently based on race is racism. Why do we need to do it?

It is not racism. It might still be something you find objectionable and it can arise for racist reasons but discrimination is an action and racism is an attitude/belief. Discrimination can arise for all sorts of reasons (for example, all the discrimination based on characteristics that aren't race) so why does all racial discrimination have to be an expression of intrinsic superiority? Your position isn't just wrong, Rand, it flat out doesn't make sense.

Don't you think it's possible that the person who was sent a rejection letter from their college of choice, or missed out on a job opportunity because they weren't the right race might feel ill-will and resentment?

As an unintended and lamented side-effect? Sure. So? Are you missing the verbs in my sentence?

[Enoch the Red]

As an unintended and lamented side-effect? Sure. So? Are you missing the verbs in my sentence?

So the unintended and lamented side-effect of affirmative action might actually lead to the same ends of real and actual racism, but it's okay because your intent is good?

What is it they say about the road to hell?

[RandBlade]

I would suggest that policies of positive discrimination are put in place to address (perceived) institutionalised racism.

IOW, (the perception is that) black kids are not given the same opportunities as white kids, simply because of the colour of their skin. All things being equal, Bloggs Co prefers to employ white John Smith over black Bill Jones, because Bill is black.

Now how widespread this is I do not know. Anecdotally, I have several circumstances I can relate of exactly this kind of racism in the workplace.

Such practices are abhorrent.

However, I would also argue that while positive discrimination may statistically alleviate such occurances of racism, it does nothing to address the underlying cause(s), and ends up being discriminatory against white John Smith. Efforts are better spent on both educating people and enforcing more rigid employment practices.

If someone has frostbite on their fingers you don't treat it by putting a bandage on their knee. I repeat again who has the better chances the black, middle-class child of a pair of very well educated and successful lawyers ... or a white orphan from a ghetto?

If there are problems address them. But race alone shouldn't be used to discriminate.

It's extremely strange to read this sort of thing. Do you not realise that black people in the US have worse chances compared to similarly wealthy or similarly poor white people? Do you not know that two of the stated goals of affirmative action are to tackle implicit negative race-based discrimination and deeply entrenched structural biases that make it worse to eg. be black than to be white when all other things are equal, except perhaps in cuckold porn?

Except that all else isn't equal. There are a plethora of issues that affect an individual and not merely race so how about tackling the real issues and not just lazily discriminate in favour of some and then be sat content that you've done a good deed?

Don't you think it's possible that the person who was sent a rejection letter from their college of choice, or missed out on a job opportunity because they weren't the right race might feel ill-will and resentment?

Not just that. Don't you think it's possible that the person who was sent a rejection letter or missed on on a job opportunity who would have missed out anyway might blame it on the fact they weren't the right race and might feel ill-will and resentment?

Just as those who do get into the college of their choice, or do get a job opportunity - because they deserve it and have worked hard for it - might be considered to be the Token Black despite being his or her own person who deserved to be their.

Discriminating based on race is always invidious discrimination that is offensively unfair and/or creates ill-will and resentment or otherwise disparages BOTH those discriminated against and towards.

It is not racism. It might still be something you find objectionable and it can arise for racist reasons but discrimination is an action and racism is an attitude/belief. Discrimination can arise for all sorts of reasons (for example, all the discrimination based on characteristics that aren't race) so why does all racial discrimination have to be an expression of intrinsic superiority? Your position isn't just wrong, Rand, it flat out doesn't make sense.

You may want to be pedantic but racism is typically used to include racial discrimination. Legal definitions almost always describe racial discrimination and are then quoted as racism. EG it is commonly said that racism is illegal in UK employment law but what is illegal is discriminating based on race, not discriminating based on race because you believe your own race is intrinsically superior. You can be as pedantic as you want but I doubt intrinsic superiority features in very many legal statutes regarding racism.

As an unintended and lamented side-effect? Sure. So? Are you missing the verbs in my sentence?

No as an obvious and fully accepted side-effect. You can't discriminate based on race and then lament that the effects of discriminating based on race are unintended.

[Aimless]

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the notion that negative race-based discrimination isn't a "real issue" in the US.

[Enoch the Red]

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the notion that negative race-based discrimination isn't a "real issue" in the US.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is what he said. What I got out of his post is that there are factors far more important than race, and in the cases where race really is an issue that affirmative action is not the right solution to that problem.

[Aimless]

The relevant UK laws to which you're referring have to do with fairness and don't speak toward any wider discussion on the concept of racism beyond that. The language they use in this context is a bit peculiar in that it considers only one specific definition and associated connotations of the word "discrimination".

For some thoughts on what racism might be, consider the following :

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

I note that you seem to have a strange definition of the word "unintended".

[Aimless]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is what he said. What I got out of his post is that there are factors far more important than race, and in the cases where race really is an issue that affirmative action is not the right solution to that problem.

He's either addressing a strawman--"you believe race is the only real problem"--or excluding negative race-based discrimination from the category of "real problems" to solve. More charitable readings may be eg. that he believes that sort of discrimination is or should be so far down on the list of "real problems" as to not merit our consideration, or that it's a problem that for some reason should not be touched but will automatically be solved if you solve the other more real problems. Both of those views can be discussed although I feel all possible readings of his statement require further justification of his implicit assumptions. I realize that the notion of two wrongs never being able to make a right is also a core theme for RB and other critics of affirmative action but that's a view/argument that's easy to call into question.

The question of whether or not various forms of affirmative action eliminate overt racism and race-related resentment presupposes that eliminating those things is a major goal of affirmative action or an important part of its rationale.

[GGT]

What bar would you set for the impeachment of a supreme court justice who makes a ruling that is obviously counter to the law of the land. IE if a justice (and his four buddies) rules that woman could only vote if they were married. Their reasoning? Because they interpret the constitution to mean that. Obviously an extreme example but would you call for their impeachment? And if so please tell me where you would draw the line what would be the least extreme example that would warrant impeachment?

First off, if a modern SCOTUS justice believed that unmarried woman weren't afforded the same constitutional right to vote as married women, or men for that matter, they wouldn't find "four buddies" to agree. Secondly, it's not uncommon to have a divided court, even though they all believe in "law of the land", and Constitutional Law.

As for your obviously extreme example -- I think fellow justices would see that for what it is --- a symptom of organic illness --- not a reasoned interpretation of the constitution. Given the stature and gravity of the court, I think they'd do whatever they could to encourage that justice to retire, and no "impeachment" process would be needed.

Their principles are based on Constitution Law and Judicial oversight....not loyalty to fellow justices.

[RandBlade]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is what he said. What I got out of his post is that there are factors far more important than race, and in the cases where race really is an issue that affirmative action is not the right solution to that problem.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Thought it was pretty simple, glad you at least understand.

The relevant UK laws to which you're referring have to do with fairness and don't speak toward any wider discussion on the concept of racism beyond that. The language they use in this context is a bit peculiar in that it considers only one specific definition and associated connotations of the word "discrimination".

For some thoughts on what racism might be, consider the following :

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Sounds pretty clear to me that affirmative action does fall under that. Again if you want to avoid pedantry of one definition then racism (and the legal definition of "racial discrimination" to which that is normally referred to as) does include that.

I note that you seem to have a strange definition of the word "unintended".

Why? The intention of racial affirmative action laws is to discriminate based on race to the exclusion of other factors. Seems clear that racial discrimination then is "intended" and not "unintended".

He's either addressing a strawman--"you believe race is the only real problem"--or excluding negative race-based discrimination from the category of "real problems" to solve. More charitable readings may be eg. that he believes that sort of discrimination is or should be so far down on the list of "real problems" as to not merit our consideration, or that it's a problem that for some reason should not be touched but will automatically be solved if you solve the other more real problems. Both of those views can be discussed although I feel all possible readings of his statement require further justification of his implicit assumptions. I realize that the notion of two wrongs never being able to make a right is also a core theme for RB and other critics of affirmative action but that's a view/argument that's easy to call into question.

The question of whether or not various forms of affirmative action eliminate overt racism and race-related resentment presupposes that eliminating those things is a major goal of affirmative action or an important part of its rationale.

No I don't believe either of those things that you have put in quotation marks, which is why I've not said either of them. I believe that even when racial discrimination is a real problem that the solution is not to merely lazily racially discriminate back and thus continue by both law and by side-effect the indefinite continuance of racial discrimination. Ingraining the problem into law is not the solution. The solution is to take other actions to solve the underlying causes and effects and not just add petroleum to the fire.

My problem is not in tackling racism which you seem to narrow down the field to in your made up quotes, my problem is using THIS as the solution. There are alternative solutions.

[GGT]

Name, and outline those "alternative" solutions.

[Loki]

It's discrimination. Specifically it is positive discrimination. Discrimination does not have to be and in this case certainly is not racism. Racism is about thinking one or more races are intrinsically superior to any or all others. Racism fuels invidious discrimination, discrimination that is offensively unfair and/or intended to create ill-will and resentment or otherwise disparage those discriminated against.

Surely lowering standards for one race is implicitly claiming that the race is inferior...

[RandBlade]

Name, and outline those "alternative" solutions.

Alternatives to saying "discrimination is bad. Except discrimination is good when we say its good. So sometimes discrimination is good but generally its bad and its bad when you do it just because"?

1: Outlawing racial discrimination - no exceptions*.
2: Tackling and reforming poor performing education from where it most matters - prior to adult ages at school as a child is when it counts the most.
3: Reaching out to more deprived neighbourhoods and encouraging applications.
4: Being adaptable to real circumstances rather than just blanket coverage of arbitary things like skin colour.
5: Ensuring that opportunities are available financially.

Those just for starters. Most important is IMO Point 2 and for reforms that could be enacted swiftly I'd point as an example to that well-known bastion of reactionary GOP Conservativism that is ... Sweden.

Rather than slap a bandage on by giving essentially bonus points based on race that will most benefit those who don't need it (the children of already successful black parents who aren't the biggest victims of racism) tackle education where it counts the most: at the school. Rather than permitting sink schools that act as glorified day care between 9-3.

* Only exemption I'd keep being the exemption that nobody ever objects to which is for actors portraying characters when its necessary. I have no objection to someone wanting to hire someone to portray Lincoln in a movie to ask for a white, male actor who looks like Lincoln ... That's not discrimination, that's playing a character. No exemptions whatsoever for colleges etc which is what we're discussing.

[Lewkowski]

It is not racism. It might still be something you find objectionable and it can arise for racist reasons but discrimination is an action and racism is an attitude/belief. Discrimination can arise for all sorts of reasons (for example, all the discrimination based on characteristics that aren't race) so why does all racial discrimination have to be an expression of intrinsic superiority? Your position isn't just wrong, Rand, it flat out doesn't make sense.



As an unintended and lamented side-effect? Sure. So? Are you missing the verbs in my sentence?

Not to get into an argument on semantics but racism is often defined as discrimination based on race.

[Lewkowski]

First off, if a modern SCOTUS justice believed that unmarried woman weren't afforded the same constitutional right to vote as married women, or men for that matter, they wouldn't find "four buddies" to agree. Secondly, it's not uncommon to have a divided court, even though they all believe in "law of the land", and Constitutional Law.

As for your obviously extreme example -- I think fellow justices would see that for what it is --- a symptom of organic illness --- not a reasoned interpretation of the constitution. Given the stature and gravity of the court, I think they'd do whatever they could to encourage that justice to retire, and no "impeachment" process would be needed.

Their principles are based on Constitution Law and Judicial oversight....not loyalty to fellow justices.

Big picture. CURRENTLY that's not the case. But currently justices are ruling in ways no one would have thought they would 200 years ago. So in 200 years from now after some crazy cultural shifts what if 5 justices did have that ruling. What's to be done?

[Lewkowski]

I'm fairly sure you're at least partly wrong on all counts and find it ironic that you're being led astray by your black-and-white thinking

Start at 1. When you lower expectations what occurs in general? Better results? Same results? Worse results?

[LittleFuzzy]

So the unintended and lamented side-effect of affirmative action might actually lead to the same ends of real and actual racism, but it's okay because your intent is good?

What is it they say about the road to hell?

What is racism? I gave the actual definition, you apparently disagree. So what is it? You can't just deride something as having the same end result as something else which does happen to be bad. The end result of a lost poker match is the same as the end result of your wallet being stolen, does that mean they're the same?

Discrimination is not and never has been inherently bad. Every act of selection is an act of discrimination. All sorts of discrimination are considered good. Meritocratic selection is discrimination against people who didn't perform as well. Casting for a black character from a screen-play discriminates against Asian actors. And hell, it's the exact same end as you'd get if you were prejudiced against "slant-eyes."

[LittleFuzzy]

You may want to be pedantic but racism is typically used to include racial discrimination. Legal definitions almost always describe racial discrimination and are then quoted as racism. EG it is commonly said that racism is illegal in UK employment law but what is illegal is discriminating based on race, not discriminating based on race because you believe your own race is intrinsically superior. You can be as pedantic as you want but I doubt intrinsic superiority features in very many legal statutes regarding racism.
No as an obvious and fully accepted side-effect. You can't discriminate based on race and then lament that the effects of discriminating based on race are unintended.

Not to get into an argument on semantics but racism is often defined as discrimination based on race.

Rand I don't give a flying fuck what your law says, I care what our law says. And it doesn't matter a good goddamn what if general and imprecise English uses "racism" as shorthand for any and all discrimination based on race, whether it's invidious or not. And Lewk, racism isn't defined as discrimination based on race, that discrimination (which is itself a generalized and imprecise shorthand for invidious discrimination) is a provided example of racism. B is a subset of A. B can be defined as A but A is not defined as B even if it is interchangable with A when within the subset. "I'm gonna string you up you filthy n*" is an example of racism even though there is not the slightest trace of discrimination in it. It's just violence motivated by racial hatred.

Surely lowering standards for one race is implicitly claiming that the race is inferior...

That's not a claim advanced by Enoch. Enoch objected that it disparaged whitey. And yes in a way it does claim that. More accurately and precisely, affirmative action states that otherwise equivalent candidates are not functionally equivalent due to past or present obstacles based on US racial history and that temporary positive discrimination can correct observed environmentally-induced inequalities. Racism labels such inequalities (real or perceived) as intrinsic characteristics. The former is ultimately a statement about society, the latter is about race. Nuture v Nature.

You can make all sorts of arguments against positive discrimination like Affirmative Action. You can say it has run its course. You can say its counterproductive. You can say the invisible hand will handle the task better. But you can't source it in racial hatred or claims of intrinsic superiority and inferiority. And that's what racism is defined as, not discrimination, no matter how BADLY and INACCURATELY the term is thrown around.

[Lewkowski]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

[Loki]

That's not a claim advanced by Enoch. Enoch objected that it disparaged whitey. And yes in a way it does claim that. More accurately and precisely, affirmative action states that otherwise equivalent candidates are not functionally equivalent due to past or present obstacles based on US racial history and that temporary positive discrimination can correct observed environmentally-induced inequalities. Racism labels such inequalities (real or perceived) as intrinsic characteristics. The former is ultimately a statement about society, the latter is about race. Nuture v Nature.

You can make all sorts of arguments against positive discrimination like Affirmative Action. You can say it has run its course. You can say its counterproductive. You can say the invisible hand will handle the task better. But you can't source it in racial hatred or claims of intrinsic superiority and inferiority. And that's what racism is defined as, not discrimination, no matter how BADLY and INACCURATELY the term is thrown around.

That presupposes that a racist can't believe that a group is inferior today, but was not inferior in the past. And what about some of the lefty whites who do think blacks are inferior, and think that people in a weak position need government assistance? It's not atypical to find administrators in schools who don't actually believe black students can succeed, even as those administrators support AA.

[Aimless]

Surely lowering standards for one race is implicitly claiming that the race is inferior...

No, that does not logically follow. You should be able to come up with at least one legitimate alternative explanation after just a moment's thought.

[Loki]

Let's say you're a teacher. You come to class one day and tell your students, "to get an A in this class, you need to get 90% if you're white and 80% if you're black". You don't think there's implicit racism there?

[Aimless]

Let's say you're a teacher. You come to class one day and tell your students, "to get an A in this class, you need to get 90% if you're white and 80% if you're black". You don't think there's implicit racism there?

Let's say you're running in a race but unlike all other contestants you're shackled to a 50kg lead ball

[Loki]

More like you getting a head start because you didn't get as much training as the other guy.

[Aimless]

More like you getting a head start because you didn't get as much training as the other guy.

More like both but we'll at least take you on and make sure you get extra training. The point remains, however, that your previous statement about inferiority isn't logically sound in the general case

[Aimless]

Moreover, the arguments about "lowering standards" is a distraction. There's nothing about "positive discrimination" that inherently requires the lowering of any meaningful standards.

[Loki]

Yes, it does. At its essence, positive discrimination means giving candidates brownie points purely for their race. After all, we all know that Obama's kids need an advantage against some immigrant from Albania.

[GGT]

Big picture. CURRENTLY that's not the case. But currently justices are ruling in ways no one would have thought they would 200 years ago. So in 200 years from now after some crazy cultural shifts what if 5 justices did have that ruling. What's to be done?

Yeah, what if. Maybe your definition of "big picture" isn't so big after all...since you keep reverting to "cultural" norms of the 17th-18th centuries.

[GGT]

Yes, it does. At its essence, positive discrimination means giving candidates brownie points purely for their race. After all, we all know that Obama's kids need an advantage against some immigrant from Albania.

Shame on you. Using our first black President's children in the debate about equality or affirmative action in Education as an example (even in sarcasm) is pretty low. Especially coming from an "academic" such as yourself.

[RandBlade]

No its not low its entirely relevant. Using racism (as defined by the dictionary and everyone bar LF) to give bonus points to black kids and not white kids is a crass situation that will mean that the children of the President of the United States will get an advantage over poor white orphans living in care.

Who needs help more, kids of the President just because they're black, or orphans living in care who happen to be white?

[RandBlade]

Rand I don't give a flying fuck what your law says, I care what our law says.

OK lets go with your law. Do you give a flying fuck about your own? As Lewk has demonstrated our standard definition matches dictionary definitions too - but if your law supercedes that in your eyes please quote me which law defines racism as "... because of superiority"

That's not a claim advanced by Enoch. Enoch objected that it disparaged whitey. And yes in a way it does claim that. More accurately and precisely, affirmative action states that otherwise equivalent candidates are not functionally equivalent due to past or present obstacles based on US racial history and that temporary positive discrimination can correct observed environmentally-induced inequalities. Racism labels such inequalities (real or perceived) as intrinsic characteristics. The former is ultimately a statement about society, the latter is about race. Nuture v Nature.

Except that not everyone has the same nurture do they? If all black kids were discriminated against universally then it might have a point but that is not true any more. If you say its temporary then temporary until when? If its temporary until the caveat was no longer true ... then it is already no longer true. There are many, many, many successful black men and women from all walks of life from TV chat show hosts like Oprah to Holywood blockbuster stars like Morgan Freeman to doctors, lawyers, nurses, architects, businessmen, entrepeneurs, CEOs, politicians, judges ... even the President of the United States. Are the kids and grandkids of all these people suffering Nurture issues worse than the worse white kids environments today?

If you want to take Nurture into account there are far better and colourblind ways to do that. I've already suggested many alternatives. No matter how you want to spin it, skin colour != Nurture. Skin colour = race.

You can make all sorts of arguments against positive discrimination like Affirmative Action. You can say it has run its course. You can say its counterproductive. You can say the invisible hand will handle the task better. But you can't source it in racial hatred or claims of intrinsic superiority and inferiority. And that's what racism is defined as, not discrimination, no matter how BADLY and INACCURATELY the term is thrown around.

Of course you can.

Let's say you're running in a race but unlike all other contestants you're shackled to a 50kg lead ball

Please explain why Malia Obama (Father: POTUS, former Senator, former President of Harvard Law Review, graduate Columbia Law School and Harvard Law School) (Mother: Lawyer and First Lady, former University of Chicago Hospital Vice President, graduate Princeton University and Harvard Law School) has a 50kg lead ball compared to a white orphan or kid who has never had anyone in their family go to university?

One very simple Nurture alternative to look at is simply "have any parents/grandparents etc" been to university themselves. Maybe its just me but even without the politics I'd think it might be easier for someone with 2 parents who've both been to Harvard Law School to get in to study Law than the child of 2 parents who never went to uni themselves? Or the child who never knew their father and had a single mother who never went to uni herself. Maybe, just maybe target the help on those who NEED it rather than those whose skin colour is correct?

That way those black children who've had tough Nurture environments can get the proper help - as can the white, Latino or any other race kids. Those who've had positive upbringings can compete against their peers fairly.

Moreover, the arguments about "lowering standards" is a distraction. There's nothing about "positive discrimination" that inherently requires the lowering of any meaningful standards.

That's exactly what it does.